US will join Iran nuclear talks

Vienna, Austria  A senior U.S. envoy will sit eye-to-eye for the first time Saturday with a top Iranian nuclear negotiator, a sharp reversal in U.S. policy that aims to entice Tehran into ending activities that could be used to make atomic weapons.

The move to send Undersecretary of State William Burns to the Geneva nuclear talks has raised the hackles of Washington hardliners who say it signals U.S. weakness. But supporters insist because both Tehran and the United States want to ease tensions, the move could breathe life into deadlocked nuclear talks.

On the eve of the meeting, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the talks offered hope for a peaceful solution to the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program. But he also expects no quick changes from Iran, which has said "the essentials" - an apparent reference to suspending uranium enrichment - will not be on the table.

Initially, supporters of the negotiations say, the U.S and its allies could agree to stop pushing for new U.N. sanctions if Tehran stops expanding its uranium-enrichment capacities - setting the stage for fuller negotiations and what the West hopes will be agreement from Tehran to dismantle its enrichment program.

More like this story on LJWorld.com

Comments

Footsy:"Maybe you need to learn a little about what is going on in the world. Everything you said was opinion and very little was rooted in fact"And maybe you need to grow up and learn the difference between opinion and fact. Let's review....- FACT: Bush was hammered by media and people like you for not wanting to negotiate with Iran. Now the media and people like you are hammering him for trying diplomacy. -FACT: weapons, bombs, and enemy combatants have been flowing from Iran for the last 5 years for the express purpose of killing American soldiers Idiotic, childish reply: "Do you have proof...? I've heard a lot about it but not seen much proof one way or the other."Yeah, I have proof in my freezer. How old are you? You've heard alot about it...? You mean like on the news, or maybe in the story that was in the LJW a day or two ago? Or maybe the fact that it's been reported for the last 4 years? Or that General Petraeus has frequently cited the influx from Iran of weapons and bombs and Iranian funded and trained militias as being a clear and present danger and was succeeding in dragging on the conflict? You mean that kind of proof? Do your own homework, junior.- FACT: Iran is under 3 UN sanctions right now. A delegation went there to meet today, and Iran's reps left the table after less than an hour with no real discussions.- FACT: Everything I said about Hezbollah and their ties to Iran. Look it up."So now we need help to defeat Al Quaeda?"Are we the only country that has sent troops to Iraq? Are we the only country that's been attacked by Al Qaeda? Did Iran's prez say he was going to 'uproot terrorism and spare no efforts'? Is Al Qaeda a terrorist threat? Did anyone EVER say that we were gonna take on AQI all by ourselves? Can you think of a dumber question with which to retort?I could have made this simpler and just asked you to point out one thing in my first post that was all opinion, no fact. This was more fun.Oh, and by the way, quoting Scott is never a good idea, at least not in support of an argument.

Praise for what? That someone in the Bush administration realized there was very little time to leave a good legacy? He spent the last seven years doing nothing about Iran except making them more of an enemy."On behalf of the Iranian government and the nation, I condemn the hijacking attempts and terrorist attacks on public centers in American cities which have killed a large number of innocent people," President Khatami said in reaction to the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. ... "My deep sympathy goes out to the American nation, particularly those who have suffered from the attacks and also the families of the victims," he said, noting, "terrorism is doomed and the international community should stem it and take effective measures in a bid to eradicate it." Khatami added that the Islamic Republic of Iran is treading a road to uproot terrorism and to this end, he noted, it will spare no efforts. (Iran's reaction to the 9/11 attacks)And one of the related news stories included:"Iranians Honor U.S. with Moment of Silence" (NY Post)Bush had a great chance, but then he blew it.

"Praise for what?"That's great. Before, the administration isn't going to talk to terrorist supporters, and the bashers are all over the place shouting warmonger, idiot, too stubborn and ignorant to try diplomacy. They capitulate, decide let's give peace and dialogue a chance, but nope, that's no good either. 'It's too late, he ruined his chances, blah blah blah.'"He spent the last seven years doing nothing about Iran except making them more of an enemy."Right. The fact that weapons, bombs, and enemy combatants have been flowing from Iran for the last 5 years for the express purpose of killing American soldiers is Bush's fault as well. The people of Iran actually like America and the President made a nice gesture. Too bad Iwannajihad and Khaymeni don't practice what he preaches.Oh yeah, and that fantastic Iranian government just spit in the face of the UN delegation that traveled all the way there today. Almost the entire world knows how dangerous it would be for Iran to obtain nukes, another peaceful negotiation is attempted, they're already under three UN sanctiions, and Iran extends their middle finger in response."Khatami added that the Islamic Republic of Iran is treading a road to uproot terrorism and to this end, he noted, it will spare no efforts."Uproot terrorism? Spare no efforts? First of all, Hezbollah is an Iranian creation and is still funded primarily by Iran. They are terrorists, responsible for that fantastic 'suicide bomber' tactic. And if they were really going to 'spare no efforts', where the hell have they been since the Iraq war started? Ever heard of Al Qaeda? Umm, they're right here! Little help! Cop a clue before you post again, footy.

And what about the idea that "President Bush and Iraq's prime minister have agreed to set a "time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq..." Are we supposed to cheer on a the administration for doing something that they said was wrong to do? Is it different because they didn't call it a "time table?"I'll quote scott3460 when they said,"So, will one of the apologists please tell me, was bush wrong before, or wrong now? Did he flop, before he flipped?"

scott3460 (Anonymous) says:Jay:OK, well I certainly welcome someone acknowledging that changing one's mind is possible. I take it Obama will be afforded the same opportunity.-----------------------------------------------------------Sure he is allowed to change his mind when new information is presented or the circumstances has changed, It's called common sense.However most of the political yahoo's here will call it flip flopping. Flip flopping is essential to become a great leader. If you are married to your views then you will not succeed because you will eventually get burned. It happens in the markets, in business, and in politics. Remember, it's called common sense. Read about it.

Scott, First of all, what does it matter? I prefer diplomacy in all matters where it's a possibility. No, I don't think it's 'appeasement', I think it's the smart move. I've never said diplomacy was not an option or that Bush was right by declining to talk first.The Prez and admin. spokesmen have spoken against it in the past. Now they've changed their minds. Have you ever changed your mind? I suspect you are wanting to try and turn this around on me by whining about the 'flip flop' accusations concerning Obama. Sorry, I've never stated anything like that. I think the argument with BO is that his reversals seem to be purely political so as to position himself for the race. But I defy you to provide an example of a single politician who hasn't reversed on something, and usually on mulitiple topics. The political realm is not run in a vacuum. I like to hope that our men in D.C. are wise enough to switch tacks when it's prudent. The fact remains, though, that it's beyond childish and myopic for so many to gripe and kvetch when Bush said he wouldn't talk w/ Iran but when he attempts what you have been ripping him for not doing you jump up and down like a junior high kid whoopin' "Ho ho ooo oooo, see what he done did!? Oooo, he's appeasin', he's flip floppin!! What? Well, yeah, that's what I wanted, but still... ooo ooo!" Is it a good thing or not? And list one question I've ever tried to avoid.

I'm sure the McCain camp is squirming over this policy shift since his big arguement thus far against Obama has been Obama's willingness to speak with foreign nations such as Iran, something Bush/McCain swore never to do. Oops.

uhhh.......and I quote:"as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.""We have heard this foolish delusion before.""We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,"So, will one of the apologists please tell me, was bush wrong before, or wrong now? Did he flop, before he flipped? Inquiring minds want to know.....

Scott: "Inquiring minds want to know"Just because you end a sentence with a question mark doesn't mean you're inquiring, or that you actually have a 'mind' willing to discuss a viewpoint. You posted what to you was a rhetorical question. Why does Bush have to be 'wrong' before or 'wrong' now? Next time try 'Small minded minds want to pick a fight', at least it'd be more sincere.

And McCain was oh so right on WMDs, on our being greeted as liberators, of the war paying for itself ...? It would have been great had he been correct to begin with.Obama was correct in not wanting to invade Iraq in the first place. We are still there more than five years after declaring "Mission Accomplished," and you are now gloating over the fact that "fewer" Americans are being killed there now than were being killed last year. This is your victory? Brilliant. By the way, where is Osama bin Laden?

"That's great. Before, the administration isn't going to talk to terrorist supporters, and the bashers are all over the place shouting warmonger, idiot, too stubborn and ignorant to try diplomacy. They capitulate, decide let's give peace and dialogue a chance, but nope, that's no good either."Maybe if they had started with diplomacy, then there wouldn't be any argument about how "that's no good either."Do you have proof of "The fact that weapons, bombs, and enemy combatants have been flowing from Iran for the last 5 years for the express purpose of killing American soldiers..." I've heard a lot about it but not seen much proof one way or the other."And if they were really going to 'spare no efforts', where the __ have they been since the Iraq war started? Ever heard of Al Qaeda? Umm, they're right here! Little help!"So now we need help to defeat Al Quaeda? As to where they were, maybe you should look into what they were doing to help in Afghanistan."Cop a clue before you post again, footy." Maybe you need to learn a little about what is going on in the world. Everything you said was opinion and very little was rooted in fact.

"Wow. Corey, you're right. He's a flip flopper. Of course, victory changes everything."So now that we have "victory" it's okay for him to go back on his word? It's okay that his supporters threw fits when Obama said he'll talk with Iran, but it's okay now that Bush says he'll do the same? Like he did with North Korea? Like he's doing with troop timetables? I thought that Bush was the "decider."But, thanks for saying I'm right. I'll take that.